Evaluation of the positional difference between two common geocoding methods

  • Dustin T. Duncan | dduncan@hsph.harvard.edu Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Harvard Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
  • Marcia C. Castro Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
  • Jeffrey C. Blossom Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.
  • Gary G. Bennett Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.
  • Steven L. Gortmaker Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Harvard Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.

Abstract

Geocoding, the process of matching addresses to geographic coordinates, is a necessary first step when using geographical information systems (GIS) technology. However, different geocoding methodologies can result in different geographic coordinates. The objective of this study was to compare the positional (i.e. longitude/latitude) difference between two common geocoding methods, i.e. ArcGIS (Environmental System Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA) and Batchgeo (freely available online at http://www.batchgeo.com). Address data came from the YMCA-Harvard After School Food and Fitness Project, an obesity prevention intervention involving children aged 5-11 years and their families participating in YMCAadministered, after-school programmes located in four geographically diverse metropolitan areas in the USA. Our analyses include baseline addresses (n = 748) collected from the parents of the children in the after school sites. Addresses were first geocoded to the street level and assigned longitude and latitude coordinates with ArcGIS, version 9.3, then the same addresses were geocoded with Batchgeo. For this analysis, the ArcGIS minimum match score was 80. The resulting geocodes were projected into state plane coordinates, and the difference in longitude and latitude coordinates were calculated in meters between the two methods for all data points in each of the four metropolitan areas. We also quantified the descriptions of the geocoding accuracy provided by Batchgeo with the match scores from ArcGIS. We found a 94% match rate (n = 705), 2% (n = 18) were tied and 3% (n = 25) were unmatched using ArcGIS. Forty-eight addresses (6.4%) were not matched in ArcGIS with a match score ≥80 (therefore only 700 addresses were included in our positional difference analysis). Six hundred thirteen (87.6%) of these addresses had a match score of 100. Batchgeo yielded a 100% match rate for the addresses that ArcGIS geocoded. The median for longitude and latitude coordinates for all the data was just over 25 m. Overall, the range for longitude was 0.04-12,911.8 m, and the range for latitude was 0.02-37,766.6 m. Comparisons show minimal differences in the median and minimum values, while there were slightly larger differences in the maximum values. The majority (>75%) of the geographic differences were within 50 m of each other; mostly <25 m from each other (about 49%). Only about 4% overall were ≥400 m apart. We also found geographic differences in the proportion of addresses that fell within certain meter ranges. The match-score range associated with the Batchgeo accuracy level “approximate” (least accurate) was 84-100 (mean = 92), while the “rooftop” Batchgeo accuracy level (most accurate) delivered a mean of 98.9 but the range was the same. Although future research should compare the positional difference of Batchgeo to criterion measures of longitude/latitude (e.g. with global positioning system measurement), this study suggests that Batchgeo is a good, free-of-charge option to geocode addresses.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2011-05-01
Section
Original Articles
Keywords:
geocoding, positional difference, ArcGIS, Batchgeo, addresses, USA.
Statistics
Abstract views: 712

PDF: 636
Share it

PlumX Metrics

PlumX Metrics provide insights into the ways people interact with individual pieces of research output (articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, and many more) in the online environment. Examples include, when research is mentioned in the news or is tweeted about. Collectively known as PlumX Metrics, these metrics are divided into five categories to help make sense of the huge amounts of data involved and to enable analysis by comparing like with like.

How to Cite
Duncan, D. T., Castro, M. C., Blossom, J. C., Bennett, G. G., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2011). Evaluation of the positional difference between two common geocoding methods. Geospatial Health, 5(2), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2011.179